RAJNEETH KURME Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of a proceeding being SC no. 9 (v) of 2016 [(ST) no. 22 (xii) of 2016] pending before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge Baruipur, south 24 Parganas arising out of Baruipur P.S Case No. 1141 of 2014 dtd. 8/8/2014 u/s 376/417 of the IPC wherein the charge has been framed against the present petitioner u/s 376/417 of the IPC.

(2.) The brief fact of the case is that the present opposite party no. 2 has lodged a written complaint before the OC Baruipur P.S being Case No. 1141 of 2014 dtd. 8/8/2014 u/s 376 /417 IPC. The written complaint contended that the opposite party no. 2 is a resident of Baruipur, Kolkata and presently she is working as a research Scholar in the department of Food Technology and Biochemical Engineering; that since March, 2009 the Opposite Party No. 2 was in a relationship with the petitioner, who is a M. Tech and had done such course from the same department in which the Opposite party No 2 works; that presently the petitioner is working as a Technical Assistant II in Food corporation of India, Nizamabad Circle; that after the final examination of the M. Tech course, the petitioner went to Hyderabad in the middle of 2009 and after that he came to Kolkata on various occasions for appearing in various examinations; that the Opposite Party No. 2 always supported the petitioner mentally and financially whenever he needed, that the petitioner came to Kolkata on the expense of the Opposite Party No. 2 and stayed at the residence of the Opposite Party No. 2; that on 5/8/2010 when the petitioner came to Kolkata to attend the marriage function of a common friend, for the first time cohabitation took place by and between the petitioner and the Opposite Party No 2; that on that occasion, the petitioner stayed over at the house of the Opposite Party No. 2 for three days and continued to have physical relationship with her; that the petitioner convicted the Opposite Party No. 2 for developing physical intimacy by saying that he has already accepted the Opposite Party No. 2 as his wife and hence there was no reason to be worried and that the petitioner would marry the Opposite Party No 2; that thereafter, the petitioner came to Kolkata on 29/1/2011 to attend the wedding of the brother of the Opposite Party No. 2 and got introduced to the family members of the Opposite Party No. 2, her neighbours as well as friends; that during such visit, the family members of the petitioner came to know for the first time about the relationship by and between the petitioner and the Opposite Party No 2; that thereafter, the petitioner got a job in Food Corporation of India, but after getting such job, he did not inform his own family members about the relationship with the Opposite Party No. 2 that again on 3/11/2013 the petitioner came to Kolkata and on that occasion also, the Opposite party No. 2 and the petitioner had physical relationship; that during such visits, the Opposite Party No. 2 informed her mother about their relationship in presence of the petitioner; that however, after leaving the petitioner picked up quarrels with the Opposite Party No. 2 as the petitioner was upset that his own family members, especially his maternal uncle was informed about the relationship by the Opposite Party No. 2; that thereafter, the petitioner started avoiding the Opposite party No. 2 and finally informed her that he did not want to continue the relationship and intended to marry elsewhere; that the Opposite Party No. 2 tried her best to resolve the disputes but on each occasion the petitioner flatly denied marriage; that due to the aforesaid flasco, the mental peace and happiness of the Opposite Party No. 2 has been destroyed and her career is also suffering."

(3.) On the basis of the written complaint the police conducted investigation and the charge sheet has been submitted against the present petitioner u/s 376/417 IPC.